Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Underworld

This is topic Underworld in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000644

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 09-18-2003, 03:12 AM:

I don't know what to think about this one. I can certainly think of better vampires movies than this. I was kinda of bored with it. The action scenes were pretty good and made up for the dragging of the story.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 09-22-2003, 04:13 AM:

Well if you don't get this movie, or understand it, then it was not meant for you.

First off, don't take offense to this response in the form of a critique, but I must explain what type of film this is and who would be interested in it.

This is NOT a vampire film, by any real definition of the term. A vampire film will most often just revolve around one particular vamp and what people are trying to do to take him or her down.

In this film, what we have is a look at a gothic society that was created out of the 8th century, and heavily influenced by the literature that came to pass in the centuries that followed, depicting life in those times.

Here we have two houses, vamps and lykens, split 1400 years in the past from one house, and an attempt to reunite them after centuries of war. Most are opposed, however there are central figures who are involved in an underscored romance.

This is more of gothic ROMEO AND JULIET than a vampire flick. There was only one vamp bite and one lyken bite. To call it a vampire film is the same as calling Daddy Day Care a Blaxploitation film because the star is black.

This film will appeal primarily to those that are more into gothic literature, music, and arts. It will attain a cult status standing and will be revered unto by them, much like THE CROW did.

The action sequences were top notch, and by the feel of the film, it seems that the 22 million dollar budget went a very long way. In fact, it grabbed the top spot with that same amount this opening weekend.

It will be visited by many, but it will develop a very deep and true following. The rest probably won't get it, or will not seem to really get the story itself. It isn't meant for all, and for that I give it major cudos. It doens't portend to be a film for the masses, and holds its own against many a contender regardless.

I believe that the makers of this film did an excellent job with what they wanted to convey, in the way they felt.

I highly rate this film, but once again, it will not be understood by most. It has a much deeper meaning than what is on the surface, a message that is meant for the true gothics out there (not the ones all painted up with white faces and goofy haircuts).

I loved it, will see it again a couple of times this week.

dave

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 09-23-2003, 01:58 AM:

I loved it. This film was a true gothic love story. As someone who was very active in the art of role playing (yes, I call that an art--it is NOT easy) this film was as true to the image I always tried to convey in my gaming terms as possible. Role playing - ie: D&D, Vampire...and such.

This will certainly be a cult classic!

Posted by Jarred Olsen (Member # 1833) on 09-23-2003, 03:51 AM:

Bold face is my emphasis:

quote:
[This movie] has a much deeper meaning than what is on the surface, a message that is meant for the true gothics out there (not the ones all painted up with white faces and goofy haircuts).

Sorry... I just had to